BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in Illinois, challenging the state’s complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.

The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are “inconsistent with the Second Amendment.” Joining SAF are two private citizens, Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy. Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen and David Sigale. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

“Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The state legislature recently stopped, by a thin margin, a concealed carry measure. After the 2008 Heller ruling and last year’s McDonald ruling against the City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, one would think that Illinois lawmakers would act quickly to comply with court decisions and the constitution.”

“Illinois is the only state in the country that completely prohibits its citizens from carrying guns for self-defense,” Jensen added. “It is incredible that this situation has persisted even in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, and we look forward to vindicating the rights of the people of Illinois.”

The lawsuit insists this case is not an attempt to force Illinois into some regulatory scheme, but only to clarify that the state’s current regulatory ban on firearms carry is impermissible under the Second Amendment.

“Every other state has some kind of regulatory scenario,” Gottlieb noted. “Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal. Only Illinois makes it statutorily impossible for average private citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.

“Whether Illinois lawmakers like it or not,” he added, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. A complete prohibition simply does not pass constitutional muster. The state cannot stick it’s head in the sand and pretend this problem does not exist..”

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
- Edmund Burke

Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to look like they are doing somthin. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and I don't always think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and I can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

**Edited due to some critics of my spelling as I type with thumbs from an ipad.

While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

I'm a little with Todd now...I don't know the plaintiffs at all. Are these the right plaintiffs for this case? Do they have the right lawyers? It's dangerous to do this without everything being right for our side.

Now, before you start typing in all caps at me, I understand the excitement too. I would LOVE to see constitutional carry mandated in Illinois. I think that would be hilarious to watch the legislators if that happened. I just want to make darn sure we have the right case...

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

I was wondering what Todd would say, and I understand his comments. I am also hoping theis will be a really good case with good lawyers. That being said I also just joined the SAF, that doesn't mean I will give any less support to the NRA, ISRA or Guns Save Life sa I am a member of each of these also. Jim.

Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

no offense brother, but I don't think to many people will care about that. They want to see Action. I uderstand the percieved concept that we need to be hush hush, but I feel that if we cant challenge the anti's face to face on merits and make a reasonable argument then we probably dont have a leg to stand on to begin with. Granted I haven't been here long but it gets old quick being treated like a mushroom and being fed you know what and kept in the dark. All the while the Anti's are plastering on their websites. THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO HELP US We will never get a concert effort untill we are all on the same page information wise. It is my opinon ( read that Harley thinks) we need to lay it all out on the table so we can see where we are weak and get people to beat feet in those areas.

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

also,, why is grabbing all the headlines a bad thing. So far the only headlines I have seen havent helped our cause. hopefully this will get it more in the public eye becaus truth be told the common citizen didn't even have a clue this bill was up so how could they call or write there reps. We need more indefferent people, people who may not own guns but their grandpa did type folks. We need talk show hosts that women like say "look ladies there is a groups sticking up for your right to protect yourself in the event of a rape. If you don't want to just lay there and take it, and would like to be able to defend yourself check this group out."

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

also,, why is grabbing all the headlines a bad thing. So far the only headlines I have seen havent helped our cause. hopefully this will get it more in the public eye becaus truth be told the common citizen didn't even have a clue this bill was up so how could they call or write there reps. We need more indefferent people, people who may not own guns but their grandpa did type folks. We need talk show hosts that women like say "look ladies there is a groups sticking up for your right to protect yourself in the event of a rape. If you don't want to just lay there and take it, and would like to be able to defend yourself check this group out."

Truth be told, most college students, grad students, even "professionals" pay little attention to bills before their Congress.

In fact when the bill failed to pass WGN mentioned it for one minute before they went to a new topic (which I believe was sports or weather). Most IL citizens were probably blissfully unaware of it.

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can.

To be fair Todd, this is like complaining that a horse isn't good for milking. It's not the point.

From the SAF's webpage:

Mission StatementThe Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

For more information about the activities of the Foundation, or to make a Donation to help support SAF.org and the Foundation, please call 1-425-454-7012 and speak with the Second Amendment Foundation staff directly. If you would like to volunteer to support the Second Amendment Foundation with either time or money, please send us an email stating how you would like to help! The Second Amendment Foundation also maintains an Attorney Referral Service. Call 1-800-426-4302 to contact the Second Amendment Foundation if in need of pro-gun rights attorney.

Nothing on in the mission statement or FAQs mention anything about promoting legislation. Mike Moore is a member here. I will let him give what information he can before I make a judgement.

Just asking... Why do people always bring up Heller an Mcdonald when they talk about carrying a concealed weapon? The two cases actually had nothing to do with carrying outside the home.

the way I understand it, is it showed that it is an individual right, and not just a law enforcement or military right. At the time of those cases they were against the infringement of a completle gun ban and those particular people wanted to protect their own homes. ( not that they don't want cc, but we have to crawl before we walk, walk before we run) The crawling part is over we proved it's a personal right. We are one court case away where a homeless man wants the same right as a home owner to protect themselves from having some sort of carry made legal from the supreme court.

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa